Hiroshima, a stain on human history. By Paul ham.

#1
I have not read this book, just a review but that was enough to convince me he is just another revisionist lefty spouting drivel, who would rather have seen thousands of dead allied soldiers on Japanese beaches than use the bomb...I could be wrong though...has anyone here read it?
 
#2
Perhaps before you start having a go at a book you should probably read it.
 
#3
I have not read this book, just a review but that was enough to convince me he is just another revisionist lefty spouting drivel,who would rather have seen thousands of dead allied soldiers on Japanese beaches than use the bomb...I could be wrong though...has anyone here read it?
Apparently quite a lot of people think this way.

They tend to magnificently ignore the enormous projected casualties on both the Japanese and Allied sides that an invasion would have caused.

They also magnificently ignore the fact that the war would have in all probability gone on until 1947-1948.

Ahh, the benefits of hindsight, especially when (a) You weren't there and (b) You are a ******* idiot.
 
#4
I haven't read it, but there has long been an argument put forward, that by that stage of the war, there was no need for either invasion or for use of the bomb, that the war could have been ended by naval blockade. If that's his argument then it's hardly a novel one, though as we shall never know the answer he can argue it till blue in the face and nobody can prove him wrong.
 
#6
Naval blockade of what, half of the Far east?
 
#10
Hindsight & history Eh.. easy for us to make judgement today....Appologists for the past that we had no control over because we were not even fecking born are complete Knobs and their opinions should be treated as garbage...liberal, lefty appologists need a good kicking!!
 
#11
Perhaps before you start having a go at a book you should probably read it.
Sometimes, one can judge a book by it's cover. For example, I don't feel I've missed anything by not reading Mein Kampf or the Koran; neither contains any views or information I feel is relevant to myself.
 
#13
Some of the side effect of using the bomb on Japan were to finish the war before the Russians joined in and extended their influence eastwards, they had agreed to attack Japan 3 months after the end of the war in Europe, and to demonstrate to them the effects of the atomic bomb and the fact that we (or at least the yanks) had it
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
I haven't read it, but there has long been an argument put forward, that by that stage of the war, there was no need for either invasion or for use of the bomb, that the war could have been ended by naval blockade. If that's his argument then it's hardly a novel one, though as we shall never know the answer he can argue it till blue in the face and nobody can prove him wrong.
I agree, there's no shortage of cretins ready to argue that - I skewered Monsignor Bruce Kent on this subject at a university debate thirty years ago when he was being even more clueless than usual. In his case, I think he got a perverse pleasure from being deliberately provocative - he certainly didn't like being provoked back - and I suspect this creature's of the same ilk if he's arguing the attacks were unnecessary (I don't need to read the book vamps, I'm familiar enough with the subject matter to know how off-beam such an interpretation is) .

Those who want to push the case that Japan was ready to pack it in should simply hear the story of what had to be done to get Hirohito's surrender declaration recorded and past the guards.

They should then consider the views of those who were actually fighting at the time - George MacDonald Fraser talks about it - who are generally consistent that the Japs they were up against showed little or no sign of giving up.

They should then consider what the Japanese would have done with Allied POWs had they had the time - Palawan is just one example, Lord Liverpool's book gives others.

Then, if it's dead Japanese that bothers them (they never seem to be bothered by the deaths of their fellow countrymen), they should consider the bodycount on Okinawa alone.

Finally, they should have spoken to my next door neighbour, who watched the Hiroshima attack from a Japanese coal mine, and was all for it.

High time for the Arrse publication of "Hiroshima and Nagasaki - damn good show".
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Submarine and mine warfare were enormously effective in cutting off Japan's communications and imports, particularly oil. However these in themselves would not have 'won' the war; they might have left Japan isolated and starving but that is not the same as forcing a victory. Even capitulation at that point could have left Japan in the same dangerous posiiton as Germany was left in, in 1918. It also leaves out of account a huge Japanese army in China living effectively off the land. Wars are only won when infantry occupies ground; this could only be achieved by invasion, likely incurring a million Allied casualties as the Japanese would have fought, however hoplessly, every inch of the way as they had demonstrated on Okinawa. The Bomb cut through this and allowed the Allies to enter Japan and take over on the ground. Invasion would probably also have cost many more Japanese casualties than were incurred at Hioroshima and Nagasaki, but at a dreadful Allied price.

Lurking in the background was the possibility that even the mighty United States was running out of money.
 
#16
The author seems to argue that the Japanese were a spent force, militarily, and economically, which is possibly true, nobody knew that for certain at the time. So drop the bomb to make certain; one aspect of this is that unilateral disarmament is shown to be completely flawed; the Japanese had no bomb, and it didn't stop them getting a bucket of sunshine, whereas the Germans had nerve agents and didn't use them for fear of retaliation in kind.

As an aside, more people were killed in the fire raids over Tokyo, than the A-Bombs caused, none of the apologists ever focus on that fact, but getting burned to death with phosphorus is so conventional.
 
#17
Found out for the first time this year. My dad who got into the war in its final year then spent 6 months in Wales preparing for the invasion of Japan. He had never mentioned it before but on a trip to see his sister in Wales visited a site that brought it all back.
Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honshū. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.

also interesting to note that there had been a previous Op Olympic planned.
 
#18
I agree, there's no shortage of cretins ready to argue that - I skewered Monsignor Bruce Kent on this subject at a university debate thirty years ago when he was being even more clueless than usual. In his case, I think he got a perverse pleasure from being deliberately provocative - he certainly didn't like being provoked back - and I suspect this creature's of the same ilk if he's arguing the attacks were unnecessary (I don't need to read the book vamps, I'm familiar enough with the subject matter to know how off-beam such an interpretation is) .

Those who want to push the case that Japan was ready to pack it in should simply hear the story of what had to be done to get Hirohito's surrender declaration recorded and past the guards.

They should then consider the views of those who were actually fighting at the time - George MacDonald Fraser talks about it - who are generally consistent that the Japs they were up against showed little or no sign of giving up.

They should then consider what the Japanese would have done with Allied POWs had they had the time - Palawan is just one example, Lord Liverpool's book gives others.

Then, if it's dead Japanese that bothers them (they never seem to be bothered by the deaths of their fellow countrymen), they should consider the bodycount on Okinawa alone.

Finally, they should have spoken to my next door neighbour, who watched the Hiroshima attack from a Japanese coal mine, and was all for it.

High time for the Arrse publication of "Hiroshima and Nagasaki - damn good show".
My old man was in a similar position. Didn't express his feelings about it but Ma would have operated the bomb release herself. All been said as far as I'm concerned.
 
#19
We're talking about a people who spawned the 'Divine Wind'. When people are willingly prepared to die for their cause then desperate measures are required. The Emperor himself had to be forced to issue the edict to surrender to Allied forces because they would have all fought to the death and killed many thousands of ours in the process. What focussed his attention was the possibility of his country being bombed into the stone age with these new weapons and he didn't know how many more of them we had at our disposal. If anyone doubts their resolve, remember it took two of them to make them see sense. Had this been a conventional fight for another three or four years then they would have simply carried on and the world would be a different shape today politically. Let's also remember that the Russians had a particular beef with Japan and would more than likely have jumped at the chance to expand into that part of the world. They were probably still a bit peeved after the Battle of Tsushima...
 
#20
The Americans stockpiled so many Purple Heart Medals in preparation for the invasion of Japan, they're still issuing them now.

USAAF preparatory bombardments of Japans major cities prior to the invasion with chemical weapons wasprojected to kill at least 5 MILLION Japanese civilians.

They got off lightly in the circumstances.
 

Similar threads

Top